Thursday, September 24, 2009

"Obama Makes Gains at U.N. on Iran and Proliferation" screams the front page headline at the New York Times. Wow... really? He made some gains? He made progress? The United States, after years and decades of not getting along with other countries is finally tasting sweet success? Tell me - does the world love us now? Well, let's just see what they all have to say about this:

President Obama, in his first visit to the opening of the United Nations General Assembly, made progress Wednesday on two key issues, wringing a concession from Russia to consider tough new sanctions against Iran and securing support from Moscow and Beijing for a Security Council resolution to curb nuclear weapons.

Okay, I have to admit - that sounds pretty good. One speech to the UN and Obama has all the countries tingling to the point of submission to The One. But wait -

Dmitri A. Medvedev agreed to "consider" the new sanctions after Obama "decided to replace Mr. Bush's missile defense program in Eastern Europe with a version less threatening to Moscow." Poland and the Czech Republic had based a lot of their security policy on this missile defense program from the United States. Their chief concern? Russia. On September 17th, after it was announced that the U.S. would no longer be providing this security, a spokeswoman at the Polish Ministry of Defense said, "This is catastrophic for Poland."

One might wonder why we would care so much about Poland... I mean, what are they to us, right? Remember back when we were leading up to the invasion of Iraq? Tensions were high around the world, and then-president Bush was traveling the globe, meeting with leaders and mounting a "coalition of the willing." This coalition referred to any country who was supportive of the United States' efforts, whether their support consisted of just "go get 'em, tiger" or actually adding their troops to ours. There were, when all was said and done, 49 countries willing to add their names to the coalition, but only four decided to join us with their own blood. Those four? The United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark. I would say this action makes them our friend -- and that helping them out might be something we could do.

Of course, now our mainstream press (which is becoming less and less "mainstream" the more of this garbage they pull out of their collective derrieres) is trying to make the case that "Poland and the Czech Republic never really wanted the missile defense installations." For real?

Last February, Obama sent Medvedev a "secret" letter offering the Kremlin a deal. The Obama administration would scrap their plan to deploy antimissile capabilities in Europe in exchange for Russian cooperation on Iran. And now we get to read:

With a beaming Mr. Obama standing next to him, Mr. Medvedev signaled for the first time that Russia would be amenable to longstanding American requests to toughen sanctions against Iran significantly if, as expected, nuclear talks scheduled for next month failed to make progress. "I told His Excellency Mr. President that we believe we need to help Iran to take a right decision," Mr. Medvedev said, adding that "sanctions rarely lead to productive results, but in some cases, sanctions are inevitable."

White House officials could barely hide their glee. "I couldn't have said it any better myself," a delighted Michael McFaul, Mr. Obama's senior adviser for democracy and Russia, told reporters after the meeting. He insisted nonetheless that the administration had not tried to buy Russia's cooperation with its decision to scrap the missile shield in Europe in favor of a reconfigured system.

Uh-huh. And the emperor has a beautiful and fine robe... nothing to see here, folks. And really, even if we did sell out Poland in order to gain ground with Russia -- look at what we gained! Their word (whoopee) that they would back sanctions - while saying at the very same time that sanctions don't work. Oh, I'm so glad we got this done!

But that's not all His Excellency Mr. President accomplished, remember. The rest? Well, that stuff had REALLY sounded good, right? I mean, he broke serious ground in strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty!! This means we are well on our way to a nukeless world, right? Can you hear the angels singing? ... no? You can't? Well, maybe that's because this "tougher" treaty is a new "resolution" that "urges" countries to put conditions on their nuclear exports. Ooooo... sounds - well, largely non-effective and irrelevant to me. But what do I know? Apparently it's a "significant step forward," right?

The Obama administration hailed the pending resolution as a significant step forward. But it would not be binding and would become so only if the Security Council required countries to make their nuclear exports subject to such restrictions. Many countries balked at that requirement...

What?

So - basically, the headline screaming "Obama Makes Gains" is disingenuous at best. Downright deceitful at worst. He didn't make any gains -- and instead he has appeared in recent days to take significant steps backwards in supporting our friends and has attempted to make friends with enemies. Or... maybe my enemies are his friends.

One thing Obama did manage to accomplish while speaking at the UN, however, is something he manages to do quite well everywhere he goes. He said things he didn't mean and meant things he didn't say. For example, "if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East -- then they must be held accountable."

Sounds strong -- sounds good. Sounds almost great. Until you realize that Obama's advisers are telling him to shoot down Israeli jets if they fly over Iraq to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Monday, September 14, 2009

"ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities."

Stanley Kurtz of National Review Online wrote an article detailing much of ACORN's actions and policies. In this article, he states, "Acorn's tactics are famously 'in your face.' Just think of Code Pink's well-known operations (threatening to occupy congressional offices, interrupting the testimony of General David Petraeus) and you'll get the idea. ACORN protesters have disrupted Federal Reserve hearings, but mostly deploy their aggressive tactics locally. Chicago is home to one of its strongest chapters, and ACORN has burst into a closed city council meeting there. ACORN protesters in Baltimore disrupted a bankers' dinner and sent four busloads of profanity-screaming protesters against the mayor's home, terrifying his wife and kids. Even a Baltimore city council member who generally supports ACORN said their intimidation tactics had crossed the line."

ACORN is huge. Actually, huge doesn't even begin to describe them. People think of WalMart as a big business... WalMart is an ant next to ACORN. They have offices in 42 states - which could appear to be a just a large social justice, community organizing foundation. But ACORN is the foundation for numerous other ventures. According to NPR, "The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now has dozens of affiliated entities, from a home-buying assistance corporation to community radio stations to liberal research and training institutes. The giant web of ACORN organizations, primarily based in Louisiana, has been funded by a mix of labor union money, government grants (which really drive conservatives crazy) and charitable contributions from large foundations."

The Washington Examiner says, "While the organization's complicated structure makes it difficult to determine how many affiliates and subsidiaries are tied in with ACORN's vast apparatus, its connection with organized labor, especially the Service Employees International Union, is well-established, Vadum observed. SEIU Locals 100 and 880 are identified as allied organizations on ACORN's web site. U.S. Department of Labor LM-2's (financial disclosure forms) point to over $600,000 in transactions between these same SEIU locals and other ACORN operations. A 2007 LM-2 form shows SEIU Local 880, which is active in Illinois and Minnesota, donated $60,118 to ACORN for "membership services." Organized labor has kicked it back in the form of gifts and grants to ACORN totaling $2.4 million, the LM-2's reveal."

It becomes impossible for little old me to figure out where ACORN starts and ends... or if it ends at all. But it clearly does NOT end before it hits the White House. One would think we could at least relax a little bit at the news that the U.S. Census Bureau has "cancelled its agreement calling for ACORN to work on the 2010 census." This, of course, "in the wake of devastating video reports revealing corruption at local offices..." But don't relax too soon -- because ACORN has been, for months, working to change their name to COI (Community Organizations International). I would take this to mean not that they are stepping out of the program, but look for them to grow bigger... and be involved even more heavily in our government under an international banner.

In speaking with a friend last night, I realized that there are plenty of people out there who know nothing of what's going on with ACORN. The story is brilliant. It's just... so much fun. And it only keeps getting better. But I'll start at the beginning...

James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, two young adults (aged 25 and 20, I believe) have managed to pull off quite the sting operation on ACORN. They went from office to office, posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend -- or pimp, if you will. Their story continued to escalate as they spoke with employees of ACORN to the point where they were not only a pimp and his hooker looking to buy a house, but they were also planning to "ship in" thirteen under-age girls from El Salvador and force them to work the streets as well. Never batting an eye, these ACORN employees assured the couple that at ACORN they don't discriminate... and that the prostitute should be "proud" of what she does.

Every time O'Keefe and Giles stepped up their program, the ACORN employees were right on it. Educating the pimp and prostitute as to how to file her taxes as a "performing artist," how to shelter income, how to avoid paying taxes, how to deal with her incoming shipment of girls, how to avoid an ex-pimp... you name it, they covered it. They ended their time together with hugs all around, and fully expected O'Keefe and Giles to return the next business day with cash for membership into ACORN and a fee for filing the fraudulent tax returns. (Tax returns were necessary to purchase the house to be used as a brothel.) OH - and part of the story was that O'Keefe was in law school and was planning a political career - and the ACORN staffers were more than happy to advise him on how to get ahead politically without being tarnished by his imperfect associations as well.

O'Keefe and Giles released tapes obtained from the Baltimore offices of ACORN. And ACORN responded by saying this was a hatchet job done by their opposition and the offending employees were acting on their own... against ACORN policy. The offenders were canned, it was a one-shot deal, etc... at which point O'keefe and Giles released tape number two from the Washington D.C. offices of ACORN.

Then comes the following release (in part) from ACORN on September 12:

The relentless attacks on ACORN's members, its staff and the policies and positions we promote are unprecedented... if ACORN did not exist, the right-wing would have needed to create us in order to achieve their agenda, their missions, their ideal, retrograde America... This recent scam, which was attempted in San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia to name a few places, had failed for months before the results we've all recently seen... I am appalled and angry; I cannot and I will not defend the actions of the workers depicted in the video, who have since been terminated. But it is clear that the videos are doctored, edited, and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist "filmmaker" O'Keefe and his partner in crime. And, in fact, a crime it was - our lawyers believe a felony - and we will be taking legal action against FOX and their co-conspirators..."

Baaaaad FOX News, to report on a story such as this! None of the other networks have reported it -- with the exception of CNN, but they at least reported the ACORN talking points! And yes, the videos are edited - you can go see for yourself at this location. But they also have posted full audio for your listening pleasure, unedited -- and a full transcript so you can read along.

But it gets better. Because today - after Bertha's indignant response - the co-conspirators of FOX News have released yet another tape... from ACORN's New York office. I guess Bertha was misinformed about a "failed attempt" there, huh? And don't you just want to know if the New York employees butts have been puckered up, waiting for their fall? And don't you wonder how many other offices have people going to work with puckered butts -- wondering when their tape will emerge?

Inquiring minds want to know, though... where is the MSM in all this???

Monday, September 7, 2009

Well, Van Jones is no longer the "czar" he once was. (A moment of silence, anyone?) According to his resignation, "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide... I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for our future."

Hmmm... well, it's quite sad that people are able to mount a "vicious smear campaign" against him that requires using only his own words... one would think if there were lies and distortions, those might be directly noted in one's resignation. After accusing the people who simply brought to light Jones' own statements and past of "lies and distortions," one has to wonder if Van Jones is capable of doing anything "in good conscience."

Glenn Beck, on both his radio and television shows, called Van Jones a "communist-anarchist radical." BUT, he didn't simply make the statement and then walk away, he played large segments of speeches made by Jones to back up his label. I think it helped, too, that Van Jones himself said he was a communist.

Of course, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean are big supporters of Van. Howard Dean was so unfortunate as to be included in a panel on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. He chose to weigh in on the issue by saying:

"This guy's a Yale educated lawyer, he's a best selling author about his specialty, I think he was brought down. I think it's too bad. Washington's a tough place, uh, that way, and I think it's a loss to the country." When asked about Jones' signing the 9/11 truther's petition to investigate whether or not the Bush administration had caused 9/11 to occur, Dean's response was, "Well, he was told by the people waving those clipboards around that he was signing something else, so I think that's too bad. Look, all of us campaigning for office have had people throw clipboards in front of our face and ask us to sign, and he learned the hard way you ought not to do that but I don't think he really thinks the government had anything to do with the cause of 9/11."

I guess this can just go to show that Napoleon was correct in his assessment that "In politics stupidity is not a handicap." How can anyone say, with a straight face, that America has suffered a loss because Van Jones was a Yale educated lawyer on one hand, and then immediately following, suggest that this Yale education didn't even serve Jones so well as to inform him not to sign something he hasn't read? Even I, lacking a Yale education, know better than that! And further, for Dean to suggest that Van Jones ever campaigned for anything is a bit deceptive. Jones was appointed by the president without even a senate hearing...

Given all this, one has to assume one of two things... either Howard Dean is a moron, or he thinks we are.

I guess good riddance to Van Jones, although I, too, think it would have been better had he stayed in his position. It was helping to bring to light some of Obama's greater sympathies. Oh well... the mainstream media wasn't really covering it anyway.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

From everything I can gather, I am a rather unique homeschooling parent. I guess that makes sense, considering the fact that I'm unique enough to not fit in pretty much everywhere I go. Finding my "clique," so to speak, has never been something I could do.

I am a homeschooling parent for one reason and one reason only. My children need me to be one at this time. Were our educational choices different in the area in which we live, I would happily send them off each and every day for a well rounded education elsewhere. My passion lies not in cracking the books each and every day, trying to shape and mold everything which enters my children's heads -- but in making sure that they are thriving and learning. A rabid homeschooler I am not.

There is a case in New Hampshire in which the courts have ordered a mother to enroll her daughter in public school. The daughter is ten years old and the mother has been homeschooling her since first grade. The mother appears to be doing a fine job in covering the academics (and even has her enrolled in certain classes at the public school)... but she's divorced, and the father does not share the mother's religious beliefs. The father has requested the court send the daughter to public school and the court agreed. According to the court order, " Education is by its nature an exploration and examination of new things. A child requires academic, social, cultural, and physical interaction with a variety of experiences, people, concepts, and surroundings in order to grow to an adult who can make intelligent decisions about how to achieve a productive and satisfying life."

In all honesty, I can see why this would be a sticky situation. When two parents have vastly different views on life principles and religious values, who gets to decide? Does common sense dictate that the person with primary custody gets the final say?

Apparently the guardian ad litem had some profound influence on the case. The court order also said, "According to the guardian ad litem's further report and testimony, the counselor found Amanda (the ten year old) to lack some youthful characteristics. She appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith."

Question for you... how many ten year olds do you know who run to explore different faiths from their parents? How many do you know who voice a different political viewpoint? Not many, I'm sure. They're TEN. They're still trying to figure out how things work, and they often parrot the views of their primary caregiver. Yes, even those children who are in the bowels of the public education system tend to be little parrots.

The interesting thing about this case is the point on which the court focused. Religion. That little girl was ruled "too Christian." The court decided the father was right - the little girl "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting... and different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs." Fascinating reasoning, really, when you consider the fact that one of the girl's own parents is obviously exposing her to a different point of view already.

Apparently, the court system in New Hampshire thinks that the best way to teach a child to think for themselves is to expose them to the biggest "group think" racket ever. Public school.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Van Jones - the Green Jobs guy for the Obama administration - is kind of an interesting dude. For starters, he's kind of "pinko commie." Just a LITTLE (said with dripping sarcasm). Remember when Barack Obama said something about "transforming America?" Yeah... I think that pinko commie is sort of what he had in mind, and Jones is one of his helpers.

Am I over the edge here? Well, I don't know... you tell me...

Jones' job is to create "green jobs." Really, who wants to fight against clean energy and new jobs? I say, if you can create a business that is good for our environment and create jobs right along with it, more power to you! Of course, the fact that the government has to do the job creation leads me to believe that it's a money-losing proposition, but I digress.

Based on some of the things Jones has said, I have to question his mental capacity. And I quote, "You cannot beat global warming unless you understand that 40% of greenhouse gases are nout coming from cars they're coming from buildings and 75% of greenhouse gases are coming from the cities and you cannot green the cities unless you green the ghetto, and you cannot green the ghetto in 2009 without giving Pookie a job. So... that's a new environmental movement... Give Pookie a job! Beat this recession and global warming at the same time. Beat pollution and poverty at the same time. And recognize the true genius of Barack Obama is that the first black president is the first green president. He's not just trying to save you - he's going to save the whole wide world!"

Ooookaaaay. Not sure just who Pookie is, but I'm thinking give him a job if it will shut this guy up. What the --? Anyway, there's more. That first quote was just to get you in a happier mood.

Jones sees his job in a very important light. He's not just some grunt who is going to find clean jobs for Pookie, no siree... He says, "This is deeper than a solar panel. I want you to have a clean energy revolution... but if you stop there, if all you do is have a clean energy revolution, you wouldn't have done anything. I'm going to tell you why. If all we do is take out the dirty power in a system and just replace it with some clean stuff, put a solar panel on top of this system, but we don't deal with how we are consuming water, we don't deal with how we are treating our brother and sister species, we don't deal with the way we treat each other, if that's not a part of this movement, let me tell you what you'll have. This is all you'll have: you'll have solar powered bulldozers; you'll have solar powered buzz saws; and biofueled bombers and we'll be fighting wars over lithium for the batteries instead of oil for the engines. And we'll still have a dead planet! This movement is deeper than the solar panel! Don't stop there! Don't stop there! No, we are going to change the whole system! We're going to change the whole thing! We're not going to put a battery in a broken system! We want a new system!"

Huh. A new system, eh? A new system as to how we treat each other, how we treat our "brother and sister species..." What IS that, anyway? Clearly, this is an angry gentleman. He doesn't like our system, that much is certain. He has made comments about how we have the "wrong agricultural system," too. What did he mean by that? Well... here's what he said, "White polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially scaring poison into the people of color." Ah!!!! I see now. It's all about skin color. But don't worry -- he's not ONLY concerned with the black people... He also said, "And our Native American sisters and brothers who were pushed and bullied and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn't want, where it was all hot and windy, well guess what! Renewable energy. Guess what! Solar industry. Guess what! Wind industry. They now own and control 80% of the renewable energy resources. No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth. Give them the wealth. Give them the dignity. Give them the respect that they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt."

Yes, he likes to repeat himself. But it seems that the "new system" they want is one which redistributes the wealth. Who could have known that this was what Barack Obama had in mind? It would have been impossible to say before the election, right? I mean, of course he SAID he wanted to redistribute the wealth to Joe the plumber, but... who knew he meant it?

On August 31, the New York Times ran an article titled, "Justice Department to Recharge Civil Rights Enforcement." According to the article:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is reshaping the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division by pushing it back into some of the most important areas of American political life, including voting rights, housing, employment, bank lending practices and redistricting after the 2010 census.

As part of this shift, the Obama administration is planning a major revival of high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies, in areas ranging from housing to hiring, where statistics show that minorities fare disproportionately poorly. President George W. Bush's appointees had discouraged such tactics, preferring to focus on individual cases in which there is evidence of intentional discrimination.

So - we have a green jobs dude who who is dedicated to making sure the white folks don't achieve - after all, they're just busy scaring poison into everybody, so they don't deserve to have any wealth. The minorities, though -- and especially those Native Americans -- THEY will finally be getting what they deserve after having been bullied and shoved and pushed... wait. How old ARE these folks? They must be nearing 150! And here I thought that the old people were going to be getting the ax in the new health care system. Guess they're planning to give them all the wealth instead. Who knew?

And then we have Eric Holder, who is going to make sure that people are playing nice -- even when there's no evidence that there was any not nice... I guess it's important to just breathe down people's necks a bit, just for purposes of job creation?

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

About Me

"The Qur'an and the Hadith command violence. Even if you were to conclude that this is a gross oversimplification that distorts the mythical 'true Islam,' that would be irrelevant. Millions of Muslims believe it to be true. Terror victims are not any less dead if those Muslims are mistaken."